This paper presents two models of skill-standards development and skill certification--the professional model and the skill-components model. We have developed these models after analyzing the skill standards movement and the 22 Departments of Labor and Education pilot projects that are developing skill standards for various U.S. industries. A detailed description of the two models, the pilot projects, and the conditions that have encouraged the skill standards movement in general are provided in the National Center for Research in Vocational Education (NCRVE) report, Making Sense of Industry-Based Skill Standards (Bailey and Merritt 1995).
The distinction between an approach to skill standards based on traditional dualities and one based on a more integrated perspective can be illustrated by two broad models that we have developed--the skill-components model and the professional model. These two models differ along two critical dimensions, the conceptualization of skill and the role that workers play in the development and governance of the skill-standards system.
Workers are expected to have basic academic skills--literacy and numeracy--but a sharp distinction is maintained between academic and vocational learning. Academic skills are learned prior to specific vocational skills and are useful to the extent that they help workers master the required list of tasks. But with the typical approach to teaching and the types of tasks that workers are asked to carry out, workers are not encouraged to, and do not, transfer these enabling competencies to their applications (Stasz, McArthur, Lewis, and Ramsey 1990). That is, workers are trained to perform tasks that are defined by their supervisors, but they are not expected to know when to do them, how they fit into related tasks, how they relate to a final product, or how they can be improved or applied to different situations (Bailey 1989).
The conception of skill found in the skill-components model has two important implications. First, the effectiveness of a worker can be characterized by how well the worker carries out a list of individual tasks, the principal difference between skilled and unskilled workers being the length of the list of tasks that they can perform. Second, since the skills of workers are a collection of tools at the disposal of managers, it is reasonable that the managers, not the workers, will have control over the process of developing skill standards and their certification.
But professionals must also be able to carry out specific tasks. Nevertheless, two professionals, equally adept at carrying out specific tasks, could differ profoundly in their effectiveness as professionals. As Hoachlander (1995) points out, a pilot's job is much more complex and nuanced than a list of pilot skills or tasks would indicate. No pilot certification system could be considered adequate if it did not require pilots to accomplish specific tasks such as landing a plane. However, Hoachlander argues, pilots who can hit the landing path consistently will crash if they use poor judgement in non-routine situations.
In the professional model, technical and academic skills are the foundation or enablers for more complex general functions such as problem-solving, reasoning, or using judgement. In contrast, in the skill-components model, the broader academic skills are the foundation or enablers of specific tasks and technical skills. Thus tasks are the ultimate activity for nonprofessional workers, while, for the professional, tasks are necessary (but not sufficient) to carry out the broader core activities of the occupation.
Academic and vocational integration. The skill-components model fundamentally separates academic and vocational skills. Academic skills are taught in school settings for abstract or unspecified purposes. Vocational skills, in contrast, are taught for work--often at work or in work-like settings. There is little, if any, connection or application drawn between academic and vocational skills. An academic skill for a laboratory technician might be the ability to write in complete, meaningful sentences. A lab technician's vocational skill might involve placing entries into a log book. Although these two skills are interdependent, in the skill-components model they are thought of as separate.
The professional model, on the other hand, minimizes the distinction between the types of skills--academic or vocational--that workers possess and concentrates on how the skills are combined to achieve a workplace-related goal. The fact that a lab technician can write complete sentences in a paper for a science course may be of little use in the workplace; for the skill to have any value, the technician must be able to utilize, transfer, or apply this "academic" ability as written communication in a "real" setting.
Workplace integration. The workplace also plays a different role in the two models. In the skill-components model, skills (whether academic or vocational) are generic and have no solid workplace applications. It is assumed that the ability to log lab information goes no deeper than filling in a log book in some pre-determined fashion involving no judgement calls or decision making on the part of the worker. The worker is limited to a pre-established set of responses related to the most appropriate technical skills; no application of other perhaps distantly related skills or judgements are necessary.
In the professional model, however, what is critically important is the worker's ability to apply a variety of skills in the context of the workplace. For example, using a log book involves the worker's discretion about the importance of relaying information to colleagues as well as the ability to communicate the information that the organization needs now and in the future. An independently functioning lab technician (similar to a physician logging information onto a patient's chart) must be able to assess a situation, decide what information is important enough to include in a log book, and document that information in an understandable fashion.
The empirical basis for the analysis in this paper is an examination of 21 of the pilot projects.1 In the dimension of academic and vocational integration, the pilot projects can be differentiated in three groups. In the first group, there is no integration between skill types; academic and vocational skills are listed separately. In the second group, academic skills are differentiated from vocational skills but are applied to a generic workplace setting or task that illustrates their use in the workplace. In the last group, academic skills are embedded or integrated in the technical functions (vocational skills) required in the occupation.
With respect to workplace integration, there again are three kinds of groups. The largest group follows the skill-components model: skills are listed with no workplace application relevant to the specific occupation or industry. The second group provides specific workplace applications to indicate how skills may be used. The smallest group of projects follows the professional model: their list of skills includes the organizational and industry dynamics as critical aspects of the skills; that is, they indicate how workers are expected to operate in their surroundings.
Combining the two dimensions, we were able to distinguish three categories of projects.2 The accompanying chart displays the two-dimensional categorization of the standards created by the 21 projects.
|Academic and Vocational Integration||Skills are listed generically with no workplace application relevant to the specific occupation and/or industry||Workplace applications are provided as examples to indicate how skills are used||Critical aspects of the job and organizational and industry contexts are integrated|
|Academic skills are differentiated from vocational/technical skills||Compartmentalized|
|Academic skills are applied to a generic workplace setting but remain distinct from vocational skills||Contextualized|
|Academic and vocational skills are integrated||Contextualized|
We refer to the six projects that maintain a distinction between academic and vocational skills and offer no workplace context as having compartmentalized standards. Four projects combine academic and vocational skills and integrate the standards into critical workplace functions. We refer to these as consolidated standards. The eleven remaining projects, an intermediate group that we refer to as contextualized, use workplace tasks or vocational activities to provide examples of the usefulness of particular skills but do not integrate the workplace or the types of skills into the standards.
In these compartmentalized projects, all skills are narrowly defined. The technical skills are a list of explicit abilities necessary to perform industry-specific or occupational-specific tasks and duties. The academic skills are the foundation or basic competencies that an employee needs before gaining technical skills. So-called employability skills such as the ability to follow schedules, when included, form a third, separate listing of skills, which are usually appended to the skill framework.
Just as types of skills are disconnected from each other, they are also disconnected from any workplace context or application. This lack of skill application is especially apparent for academic skills. In the compartmentalized projects, standards do not indicate how, for example, mathematics skills such as the conversion of fractions into decimals or percentages must be used by technicians in the performance of their jobs. The required skill is simply listed, and the tasks that will utilize this skill are listed separately and generically.
For example, one project identified skills in three categories--technical, employability, and related academic--and listed them separately. "Technical Skills" include appropriate safety procedures and keeping work areas free from clutter. "Employability Skills" include following schedules and practicing self-starting techniques. "Related Academic Skills" include algebra, interpreting ratios, and solving linear equations.
Because it does not adhere so strictly to labeling skills, use of the professional model promotes the expansion of worker roles within the organization. In this approach, identifying a list of skills is less important than understanding the underlying aspects of worker roles and responsibilities. As one project staff member commented, standards center around what the work actually looks like and its relation to the organizational or industry mission. The knowledge, skills, attributes, and task competencies required of workers are seen as "enabling" the performance of broad organizational roles.
If skill standards are to contribute to a broad reform of schools and workplaces, employers must be convinced that their workers need new types of skills; skill-standards projects need to base their job analyses and assessments on the professional model; and schools must have the capacity to educate students up to those broader, more sophisticated standards.
Bailey, Thomas and Donna Merritt. (1995). Making sense of industry-based skill standards. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California, Berkeley.
Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce. (1990). America's choice: High skills or low wages. Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy.
Ganzglass, Evelyn and Martin Simon. (1993). State initiatives on industry-based skill standards and credentials. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association.
General Accounting Office. (1993). Occupational skill standards--Experience in certification systems shows industry involvement to be key. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
Grubb, W. Norton. (1995). Education through occupations in American high schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hoachlander, Gary. (1995). Making pilots: An inquiry into standards. Paper presented at the 1995 American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Rosenbaum, James, Takehiko Kariya, Rick Settersten, and Tony Maier. (1990). Market and network theories of the transition from high school to work: Their application to industrialized societies. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 263-299.
Stasz, Cathleen, David McArthur, Matthew Lewis, Kimberly Ramsey. (1990, December). Teaching and learning generic skills for the workplace. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education, University of California, Berkeley.
Wolfson, Alan D., Michael J. Trebilcock and Carolyn J. Tuohy. (1980). Regulating the professions: A theoretical framework. In Simon Rottenberg (Ed.), Occupational licensure and regulation. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
This Centerfocus was developed at the Institute on Education and the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia University, which is part of the National Center for Research in Vocational Education (NCRVE). It is a distillation of a report entitled, Making Sense of Industry-Based Skill Standards, by Thomas Bailey and Donna Merritt, 1995. This report is available from NCRVE's Materials Distribution Service at 1-800-637-7652, reference number MDS 777.
This publication was published pursuant to a grant from the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education, authorized by the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Act.
National Center for Research in Vocational Education
University of California at Berkeley
Address all comments, questions and requests for additional copies to:
2030 Addison Street, Suite 500
Berkeley, CA 94704-1058
Our toll-free number is 800-(old phone deleted)